Morgan, Post 4

Morgan Frost

1. Art is so threatening to authoritarian thinkers and regimes, that even the definition of the word “authoritarian” is challenged by the ideals of art. Allowing people to express themselves is giving them individual power, a contradiction to the subjection to authority and sacrifice of personal freedom that constitutes authoritarian control. Offering this freedom through art, people can form and express their own opinions. But as authoritarian Hitler mentions in his speech, the people should all believe in one set of values that is “everlasting” and “German.” He denounces “modern art” for its ever-changing values. Here we see that it is in the authoritarian’s best interest for everyone to be of the same opinion. In this way he has control and has unified the nation. When people do not have individual power, they are suppressed from questioning authority and initiating changes in the social or political structure and therefore undermining the authoritarian method. Plato also supports a nation’s unity and progress, and recognizes that art can cause people to stray to “disharmony and conflict.” He holds the view that only the educated should be ruling, and this authoritarian thinking has no room for free-thinking artists or the free thought they might incite in their viewers.
2. Expressionist artist Otto Mueller often depicts the human body in nudity and within a nature setting. The paintings are not realistic in the sense that one could ever mistake them for reality (due to slightly distorted shapes and blending of color), but human bodies are distinguishable. His work also portrays sensuality between women. Their bodies are depicted very smooth and flowing into one another and into the landscape, as if to say the emotions captured and the relationship between them is natural. The homosexual nature of the paintings thus comes across as beautiful, and the calm nudity beautifies the women’s bodies.
1. Degeneracy is in layman’s terms the opposite of generating, which is creating. So the concept of degeneracy deals with the backward movement of any thing away from progress. This concept can be applied to progress of virtually anything toward its product, and specifically in this class we see the term “degenerate” used by Hitler and the Nazis. The product being referred to is a unified Germany under authoritarian rule of Hitler and his Nazi party. Hitler’s method for achieving this Germany is to eliminate that which is deemed “degenerate.” In his view, the creation to strive for is that of a nation free of “degenerate” or abnormal people (“the mentally ill, Jews, homosexuals, habitual criminals,” etc.)(Mosse). Not only was this new Germany being physically generated to Hitler’s ideals, but politically as well. Art and the media were heavily monitored to influence the people to succumb to the political views of the Nazi Party. People not on board with the Nazi ideals and supportive of war were a threat and thus considered “degenerate” to the new Germany.
2. The first thing that I see in Mueller’s work that Hitler would have viewed as degenerate is the obvious deviation from a realistic portrayal of people. As discussed earlier, these pieces are examples of expressionism, and the paintings are not made as if a direct representation of what Mueller saw. Hitler might refer to this as a “misinterpretation” and account it to “eyesight-deformation” (Hitler). The other aspect that Hitler might see as “degenerate” is the nude sensuality of the women. Art that was accepted into the Great German Art Exhibition could be nude if it lacked sensuality (Mosse). These pieces, however, show an intimate connection between the women that suggests more than mere nudity—but a sensual connection. And though “lesbianism (was) ignored as a punishable crime” while male homosexuality was persecuted, homosexual activity was still deemed degenerate (Mosse). Heinrich Himmler, leader of the SS, even refers to “homosexuality as a sickness that poisoned both body and mind” (Mosse). And so the homosexuality portrayed in these paintings are another aspect that make them “degenerate” to German art.

i. Hitler viewed his nation as an organism, with him as the brain and center of control of the society. Therefore his opinions and political agenda was also that of the people. They should think as he does. The body is one, and there are no individuals except that work for the good of the body as a whole. With an “abnormality” such as homosexuality being beautified in Mueller’s works, they are a direct threat to the status quo that Hitler was trying to uphold for his “body politic” free from “degenerate” people and ideas. Himmler, who viewed homosexuality as an “illness,” also used the body complex to show that the riddance of an “illness” such as homosexuality is positive, just like curing an actual physical ailment (Mosse). And so extinguishing these abnormal people becomes like removing a wart from your skin, it is for the improvement of the body as a whole, and what is being removed is worthless “degenerate” material.

3. The body in art was the main site for accusations of degeneracy because it is easy to observe degenerate traits through visual manifestation. The Germans even had nude art that was considered what a model German should look like, among these Greek art and pictures of Olympic athletes (Mosse). These are used as standards by which to compare the human shape, and provide the sample that all human art forms should strive to portray. The body, especially in nudity, is also connected to sexuality. And one of the main criteria for art to be considered “degenerate” by National Socialism is sensuality (Mosse). Many artist’s depiction of the human body involved sensuality, and this was considered a “danger to society” because it posed a “revolt against respectability” and the uniform German ideals the Nazis were pushing on the public (Mosse).

i. As discussed earlier, the body was also used as a metaphor for the structure of Hitler’s authoritarian regime. In his speech he connects the abnormalities he wants to eradicate from the German population with such things as “diseased bodies” and “deformations” (Hitler). And curing the society of these “degenerates” is the same process the body goes through: a “purge” and “purification” (Hitler). So here we see that the body in art is not important only because of its connection with sensuality and readily identifiable abnormalities or deviations from reality, but also as a representation of the political structure Hitler and the Nazis envisioned.

4. Beauty with sensuality in art can justify what Mosse claims it causes: “a danger to society” through “a revolt against respectability.” The reason for this is that the sensuality of a piece of work can come between the viewer and the message of the art. This especially depends on the culture. For example, an American might be taken aback by a painting of naked women and the shock and embarrassment from the sensuality can cause a biased perspective on the piece as a whole. Instead of seeing value in the work, this American might only see it as inappropriate and pornographic. A tribal African, however, can look at the same painting and see past the body, without connecting it to sensuality whatsoever. Instead he or she can look at the content of the painting and find meaning without a socially caused lens changing the vantage point. So as Mosse talks about the modern German society, it is true that beauty portrayed with sensuality can threaten social order. One example that comes to mind is the Gabbana ad that Christopher McCauley used in a previous post. Mosse would see this as a rejection especially of sexual norms, with its portrayal of male homosexuality. (Though in today’s America, the purpose of this advertisement actually is to revolt against a social norm, and help evolve it to include different perspectives.)
2. 
3. b: This image displays a “monstrous” portrayal of the possibilities in the future of stem cell harvesting. The designer Michael Burton envisions Future Farm, where people can turn their bodies into stem cell harvests. This presents an argument about the views on stem cell research. Burton ventures into this imagined realm where he can answer the questions, how far might we go with stem cells? Can we cross a line that we shouldn’t? This image helps us ponder our own values about stem cell research, and holds its own value that the human reach into the tinkering of our production can extend too far. The picture comes across as monstrous and even somewhat comical, but the underlying tone is that of a warning. Even though it seems ridiculous, and possibly because it seems ridiculous, we should question our journey further into the scientific exploration and alteration with stem cells.

Amy I post 4

Amy Iarrobino

Post 4

1. Art is threatening to authoritarian thinkers and regimes as it has widespread appeal and influence on the public, those who must be controlled. An authoritarian regime desires solidarity in morality and a unified state (Mosse, 25). Art is able to portray ideal beauty and icons such as motherly tenderness or dominant masculinity. As long as the views reflected and interpreted from the artwork coincide with that of the state, it is considered a blessing by the authoritarians. For example, the nude body in glorification of war and masculinity is considered positive, while the nude form as decaying and/or sexual promotes indecency and values against the social norm. However, when art promotes disharmony and new viewpoints it becomes a disunifying and thus dangerous force. In addition, Plato feels that art is threatening as it causes and is based upon passionate thinking of pleasure and pain rather than on common sense. Plato argues in The Republic that art will lead to governing of the state based on emotion rather than logic (Plato, Book X, 12).

2. Artist: Otto Dix, German expressionist whose artwork was featured in the Degenerate Art exhibit

The Nun

Lady

Streichholzhändler

Dix’s artwork portrays the human form as grotesque, misshapen and decaying. For example, in Streichholzhändler, Dix highlights the crippled human form in an anti-military piece showing an amputated veteran on the street. This image is much different in its portrayal and message than the bronze statue Readiness (Mosse, Figure 18). Also, in The Nun the sides of the nun’s black head covering have images of naked women. The woman on the right side looks like a caring but disfigured mother and the woman on the left appears to be suffering, these images are far from the description Goebbels prescribed of “strong, healthy and good to look at” (Mosse, 28). Beauty does not seem to be a main concern in Dix’s works, but rather the lack of. For example, common conception interprets a nun as pure (white, bright colors) and optimistic. However, the figure in The Nun looks more like a witch with the green misshapen face, black clothing and dark background; she even seems to have a sad grimace on her face as she looks at the mother-figure. Dix reflects the idea that the war has defiled and dismembered the beauty of the human form. His work entitled Lady demonstrates his dissatisfaction with the perversion of beauty as it includes the figure of a soiled and gaudy prostitute. By calling the work Lady, Dix is perhaps indicating that the image was what the lady of Nazi Germany had become. The works are removed from reality and focus more on Dix’s emotional perception rather than sensory image in nature. Thus, Dix takes pictures that should be commonplace such as a man on the street, a nun and a lady and give them anti-war and anti-societal meaning.

a) Degeneracy is art that portrays decay and in Nazi Germany it meant any art that went against policies of the National Socialism. (Kuhnel) In particular Hitler included modern art such as German expressionism, cubism and surrealism that Hitler considered Jewish, Bolshevik, cosmopolitan, costly to the public or the work of mental illness sufferers. These artists often left Germany and sometimes their work was destroyed. As stated in the video clip in class, “All German Expressionists were against the war,” and therefore in clear opposition to Hitler’s aims to glorify war with the “good” German art. If artwork not approved by the Nazis is considered degenerate then this definition encompasses expressionism and almost all modern art. The video clip watched today in class included the statement that that which is inward (emotion/interpretation and perception of the mind) should be outlawed.

b) In Streichholzhändler I could clearly see Hitler’s point that it had anti-Nazi feelings. Unlike the art approved by National Socialism, this piece did not glorify war and the perfect masculine beauty of the soldier. Rather, this work was the complete opposite, portraying the soldier as disfigured, amputated, unkempt, ignored by those who passed by and in poor physical condition. The work threatens “body politic” by possibly causing additional anti-war feelings; the soldier is no longer a hero and role-model for Hitler youth to aspire to be. The Nun and Lady also criticized society at home and the changes caused by war and Nazism, the decay of the woman and even religious figure. Of the two the Lady has a notably different technique with blunt, unrefined brush strokes that emphasize the prostitute’s lack of respectability and also the artist’s view of the woman as a decayed lady. Thus, it is as though the artist himself recognizes his art as degenerate.

c) Art provided tangible and publicly accessible evidence vulnerable to Hitler’s criticism. The degenerate art exhibition provided an opportunity for Hitler to prove his own point through the crowded and chaotic display to gain support of the tranquil and stable National Socialist view. Through the public display of the art Hitler cleverly disguised it as somewhat democratic, allowing the German people the chance to view the artwork and form their own opinion. Also perhaps Hitler’s personal experiences influenced his dissatisfaction with the degenerate art. As a young man he was rejected twice from art school (Libby, lecture Sep 17 2007) and formed anti-semitic feelings. Some of the artists labeled degenerate were indeed Jewish and Jews often purchased artwork as well. Thus, Hitler claims in his speech that Judaism caused decay and deformation of the body due to its influence on the public in areas such as art criticism (Hitler, Speech Inaugurating the ‘Great Exhibition of German Art’).

d) Mosse argues on the basic principle that “beauty might serve to cement the unity of the nation” by reflecting “accepted moral standards” (Mosse, 25). Thus any demonstration of beauty with sensuality results in violation of sexual norms. Mosse gives the example of laws against homosexuality and the need for women to remain respectable (Mosse, 28). The art of Otto Dix indeed violated social norms in his pieces which did not glorify war, presented immoral decadence and portrayed a decaying nun, thus violating norms about politics, society and religion. As for past readings, take the example of Paris Hilton presented in the Power Point on Visual Literacy. Paris Hilton frequently violates social norms in her sensual controversies such as her advertisement for a burger at Carl’s, Jr. Assuming that Hilton is considered beauty, when she is associated with sensuality she violates sexual norm. In fact, the commercial was so provocative that it could not be aired on television and exposed to children. In addition, the image of Hilton being arrested again indicates a violation of the social norm that celebrities are above the law.

3. The image of the Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange is an example of (b) in that it depicts the body as degenerate or monstrous. The image uses dark lighting which causes negative, evil emotions to be associated with it. Thus, the mother is seen as monstrous or degenerate as she is in stark contrast to our idealized view of the loving mother indoctrinated in our society by religion (the Madonna) and the government. The mother seems to not be completely enraptured in the care of her children and is looking away hopelessly. In a sense, this image represents the decay of motherhood. The political ramification is that such decay is the result of the hardship of the Great Depression in the United States and those that view this image realize the plight of their fellow Americans.

Brynne Piotrowski, post 4

Brynne Piotrowski

1. The ability of art to influence—perhaps termed as art’s power—is what authoritarian thinkers or regimes find threatening. Individual cases may focus on certain aspects of art, but in the end it is essentially the power of art that causes consternation among authoritarians. To Plato, art posed a threat because of its ability to illicit emotion. In Book X of The Republic he singles out the art of poetry in particular for how it, “feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up; she [poetry] lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled….” Plato’s guise is that he is worried about art encouraging great emotion or sentimentality, but the root of his issue with art is still its power. In Stephanie Barron’s “1937: Modern Arts and Politics in Prewar Germany” the author states that the Nazi’s given reason for a near obsession in controlling art was “the purpose of clarifying for the German public…exactly what type of modern art was unacceptable to the Reich, and thus ‘un-German’” (Barron, p. 9). Hitler and his associates indeed acted under the auspices that they were encouraging the German race and German unity, but the basis of their fears still comes across clearly. Nazi Germany worried about art wielding influence on its population and therefore, like Plato and other authoritarian thinkers or regimes, found it very threatening and desired to turn the tables and wield its own power upon art.

2a. The concept of degeneracy is the idea of a decline. Degeneracy does not merely stall forward motion in a field; it actually results in a reversal of progress. There is a definite negative connotation to the concept of degeneracy and it is often used in a derogatory manner. The idea of degeneration or a degenerate may be used to describe a lowering of moral values, cultural accomplishments, or social civilization—along with people or things that contribute to this down/backwards momentum. Degeneracy is a subjective concept that depends upon the opinions of the person utilizing it. For example, according to Ursula A. Ginder’s paper, Hitler was greatly affected by the concept of cultural degeneration that became popular in the late 19th century and particularly railed against Dadaism, “as ‘the degenerate excess of insane and depraved humans’” (Ginder, The “Degenerate Art” Exhibition). However, works of Dadaism (and much of the other art Hitler deemed degenerate) also have garnered praise and have admirers who would hardly label them degenerate. Degeneracy is essentially a reversal of progress, but it is open to interpretation by each individual according to his/her own definition of progress and its reverse.

2b. I focused on Cubism, Picasso, and in particular his work Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, seen below. I think Hitler would see degeneracy in Picasso’s portrayal of the human forms—the sharp angles, distortions, and “building block” (decompositional) approach to the human body. Indeed, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon was an early departure from mimesis in art (Picasso painted it in 1907), so this distortion would have been a visual shock to viewers of that era. The “threat” of the work is that it twists reality. To Plato, just the fact that art was not reality (even if the art attempted to be a strict representation of reality) was enough to condemn art. Les Demoiselles d’Avignon exhibits a purposefully distorted reality and therefore takes on an increased level of “threat.”

2c. I believe that the use of the body in art as the main site for accusations of degeneracy stems from the body as a universally known and understood concept. Everyone has a body, people see other bodies, and therefore people are capable of judging bodies quickly and generally superficially. The body can be idealized, which makes it easy to point out bodies’ defects, shortcomings, and any “degenerate” qualities. Hitler’s speech to open the “Great Exhibition of German Art” includes a passage in which he forbids the “pitiful misfortunates who quite obviously suffer from an eye disease, to try vehemently to foist these products of their misinterpretation upon the age we live in, or even wish to present them as ‘Art.’” He understood the ability of the body (both in reality and in art) to be easily recognized by the masses and realized its potential utilization for accusations of degeneracy.

2d. George Mosse’s argument in “Beauty with Sensuality: The Exhibition Entartete Kunst” focuses on the ability of beauty to be respectable. If beauty can maintain a formal milieu, it meets the requirements of respectability regardless of aspects such as nudity or pose. Mosse elaborates on the necessity of propriety with his explanation that, “Respectability ensured security, order, and the maintenance of values, taming the chaos that seemed always to threaten society…” (Mosse, pg. 25). Sensuality stimulates emotion and became a problem because it threatened respectability, causing a domino effect: the introduction of sensuality and its accompanying emotion meant the dismissal of respectability which would inevitably lead to chaos. Therefore, Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon contributes to chaos simply by inciting emotion or sensuality in the viewer and thereby beginning the above chain of events. This bears a rather close resemblance to Plato’s argument that art with emotion upsets the social order because it distracts from reality. Another possible case of beauty and sensuality is Leni Riefenstal’s Triumph of the Will. If one can argue that Triumph of the Will is beautiful and sensual (in the sense of emotion-inducing sensuality), one could accuse the Nazis of a case of endorsing beauty and sensuality and therefore not practicing what they propagated. Conversely, if one claims that no sensuality exists in Triumph of the Will (as there is no actual sexuality in the film), it may serve as the archetype of beauty without sensuality for the Nazis.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/blog/Feb2005.asp

3. This image is a political cartoon by Daryl Cagle commenting on voting in Iraq. The figures depicted have a certain “degeneracy” about them, although I would hesitate to label them “monstrous” by any means. I found two ways to interpret the political values displayed by Cagle’s cartoon. One possibility is a positive comment on the resiliency of the Iraqi people to vote despite evident hardships and obstacles. However, I personally interpreted the cartoon as a jab at Iraqi voters with an insinuation that they were naïve and/or ignorant of the situation in their country. My primary basis for this evaluation is the presence of wide-eyed, smiling expressions on all the faces of the people—they seem almost overly optimistic. Cagle’s cartoon places a form of “degenerate” connotation on the bodies present and definitely exhibits political ramifications.

Ruth D. Post 4

Ruth E. Day

1.

Authoritarian thinkers and regimes found art threatening because of the effect that it could have on people. Art was a way for artists to express their opinions, even if they weren’t in line with the beliefs and opinions of the regime. The worry is that if art depicts immorality then the people viewing the art will be encouraged to act in an immoral manner. This concern is as old as Platonic philosophies. “We would not have our guardians grow up amid images of moral deformity, as in some noxious pasture, and there browse and feel upon many a baneful herb and flower day by day, little by little, until they silently gather a festering mass of corruption in their own soul.” (The Republic, III) Hitler held very similar beliefs to Plato. His idea was that the depiction of sensuality in artwork would promote immoral acts such as homosexuality, prostitution, unchecked sexual activity, and others. This was very dangerous to the order of society. He also felt that modern art, which usually depicted people in a very unrealistic fashion, as dangerous to society. These, also, could corrupt the souls of the innocent by making them think that such fantasies actually exist. “ ‘Works of art’ which cannot be understood in themselves but, for the justification of their existence, need those bombastic instructions for their use, finally reaching that intimidated soul, who is patiently willing to accept such stupid or impertinent nonsense – these works of art from now on will no longer find their way to the German people.” (Hitler) Hitler wanted to ban all art whose purpose was not completely clear. Meanings could be misconstrued or even if they weren’t, the meaning that the artist intended may not be acceptable to Hitler. He was worried that hidden messages may be present in abstract art that he would not be able to discern. For this reason, he created a universal meaning for all modern art and presented it in such that everyone within his power would believe it: modern art was the creation of the insane, who could not help but create distorted figures because that is what their eye actually saw. If this was not the case, then the artist was deliberately trying to deceive the people, which was punishable by law. “If, on the other hand, they themselves do not believe in the reality of such impressions but try to harass the nation with this humbug for other reasons, then such an attempt falls within the jurisdiction of the penal law.” (Hitler) To propagate his views, Hitler commissioned the opening of a degenerate art exhibit that would place modern art in a place of ridicule with wall text that explained why each piece was considered degenerate. With such “evidence” it was hard not to adopt Hitler’s beliefs as one’s own. Authoritarian thinkers and regimes saw art as a means of expression ideal beauty or as a way for the malignant to depict immorality and deformity and thus corrupt the minds and souls of the citizens. Such a thing could not be allowed in an orderly society so the “evil” or “degenerate” art was either banned or set up for ridicule.

2.

I chose to explore the artistic movement of surrealism. What I found most interesting about his area was that it was inspired by Marxist ideals. This may explain some of the hatred Hitler had for such art. The goal of the surrealist movement was to “fuse the conventional, logical view of reality with unconscious, dream experience in order to achieve a ‘super-reality’.” (Grove Art Online) this movement yielded many abstract works that were often confusing to the viewer. They were distortions of reality meant to depict something that was deeper and more emotional. Surrealist artists wanted to express what they believed to be the meaning of existence through art. While exploring the surrealist movement, I came across a very interesting artist by the name of Marc Chagall. Chagall was born to Jewish parents in 1887. In the late 1930’s, he began to create works in response to the rise in Fascism and anti-Semitism. (Grove Art Online) Here are some examples of his work that can be found at Marc Chagall Online:

"Bouquet with Flying Lovers", 1934-1937

"Adam and Eve", 1912

"Bouquet et nu"

"White Crucifixion", 1938

As you can see, these paintings are very abstract. In “Adam and Eve” the viewer has no idea what the people pictured are doing or even if they are in fact people. He uses elements from cubism as well as surrealism to create a very powerful work of art that can be construed as sensual. The human body is interpreted as a collage of many different shapes and colors. One of the figures appears blue while the other, yellow. “Bouquet with Flying Lovers” embodies surrealism. This image seems as if it comes from a dream. You cannot see the bodies of the lovers, only the faces. This would lead the viewer to interpret that the human body is not important. The faces are because they are the window to what is inside and the true meaning of what it is to be human. The embracing lovers could make the work seem sensual, especially with the addition of the flowers in the foreground. “Bouquet et nu” is a very abstract, almost childish piece of art. There are people floating in the sky and a boy waves at a woman on the other side of what appears to be a hedge. The human body is not depicted as at all what it really looks like but just as an abstract form. The “White Crucifixion” is something Chagall painted in response to Fascism and ant-Semitism. The suffering Christ is depicted as wearing a Jewish prayer robe with over what appears to be Hanukiah. The body of Christ is somewhat distorted and the background images depict the sufferings of the Jews during the 1930s and 40s.

1. The concept of degeneracy is the idea that certain people and certain objects that are corrupted by immorality can spread their “disease” to everyone else within the society. “Degeneration was, in its modern sense, a medical term used during the second half of the nineteenth century to identify the condition of those who had departed for the ‘normal’ because of shattered nerves, inherited abnormalities, or behavioral or sexual excess.” (Mosse 26) Hitler targeted degenerate art in particular since it was believe that such art could easily deceive and therefore spread the degeneration more quickly. Modern art was considered degenerate art not only because it depicted deformed humans and fantasy worlds but also because it was not German Art. In Hitler’s opinion, degenerate art did not connect itself to any nation or culture but only to a certain time period. He felt that this allowed “non-German” art to be misconstrued as art and corrupt the minds of the German people. Hitler believed that art “is not founded on time, but on peoples.” (Hitler) He believed that German art was far superior to modern art because it was eternal. “…there existed in Germany a so-called ‘modern art,’ that is, to be sure, almost every year another one, as the very meaning of this word indicates. … ‘German Art,’ and this art shall and will be of eternal value,” (Hitler) Degenerate art was believed to be created by those who were already affected by degeneracy. Hitler believe that all of these artists were either insane, Jewish, or Bolshevist when in actuality, very few were. It was said that degeneracy was caused by sexual excess and the corruptions of Jews and communists. “The paintings on display were presented as the work of madmen disfigured by sexual excess, the represented Marxist and Jewish attacks on all that was German.” (Mosse 31)
2. Hitler saw degeneracy in the Chagall art not only because Chagall was a Jew and created works that were obviously in protest of the Nazi movement, but also because he depicted the human for in a deformed fashion and created fantasy worlds. Also, he created images that did not openly display their subject. Viewers could interpret this art in any way they wished, which was very dangerous to a totalitarian state. Also, Chagall’s work was very abstract and fantastical so he would have either been what Hitler called “insane” or a person deliberately trying to deceive others.
3. I think that the body in art was the main site for accusations of degeneracy because the image of the body can be manipulated in so many ways. It can lengthened, shortened, or misshapen so that the person looks disfigured. It can be downplayed so as to emphasize facial expressions and emotions. It can be put in erotic poses to incite lust in the viewer and encourage immorality. All of these manipulations can be used to convey different messages. To Hitler, most of them conveyed degeneracy. Also, physical perfection of the human, especially the male, body was very important to the Nazis. The perfect German man was hairless, perfectly chiseled, and bronzed and it was these types of bodies that Hitler believed should be showcased and worshipped, not those that were disfigured and erotic. Hitler saw Germany itself as a body, one that was made up of all of the German people. If the German people succumbed to the degeneration of the human body, then Germany itself would also be vulnerable to this disease. “Through the defeat, an already thoroughly diseased body experienced the total impact of its inner decomposition.” (Hitler)
4. George Mosse’s article concentrated on the Nazi belief that beauty with sensuality is a threat to social order and a rejection of social and sexual norms. “Beauty with sensuality presented a danger to society because of what it symbolized, namely a revolt against respectability as a principle of unity and order.” (Mosse 25) Throughout history, sexuality has been views as a private thing. Making it public is indecent and immoral and encourages others to engage in fornication, prostitution, and homosexuality. “The enemies of respectability, it was said, could not control themselves: they were creatures of instinct, with unbridled passions.” (Mosse 25) For this reason, sensuality within art was considered degenerate within the Nazi party. Artistic beauty had to be completely devoid of anything sensual. That’s not to say that they banned nudity. On the contrary, nudity, especially of men, was the most common form of German art. However, the purpose of nudity was not to arouse but to be an example of the perfect German body. “Sensuality was transcended by an alignment with Greek form figures that could be worshipped but neither desired nor loved.” (Mosse 28) Any artistic figure that portrayed beauty and sensuality was labeled degenerate. It was dangerous in the eyes of the Nazis and could promote immorality and social unrest. It was very important to Hitler that the art of the Germans should uphold the morality of the state and be in alignment with soicietal norms. “Beauty without sensuality was demanded of artists and sculptors, a beauty that had to reflect the generally accepted moral standards that the Nazis championed as their own.” (Mosse 25) My first two examples of Chagall’s paintings are artworks that would have gone against this Nazi idea of beauty without sensuality. “Adam and Eve” appears to depict a man and a woman embracing in a very sexual manner. The bodies tend to flow into each other so that one does not know where one ends and the other begins, as if they were engaged in sexual activity. “Bouquet with Flying Lovers” shows a man and a woman embracing as they are “flying” just outside a window. One could interpret this as the subconscious experience of having sex. These sorts of images were not acceptable in Nazi Germany. Sexuality was for the private spear, not the public. Putting it there could have dangerous consequences.

3.

These are two examples of paintings created by Colombian artist Francisco Botero depicting stylized renditions of the prisoner abuse by American guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Botero created over 80 of these paintings, all featuring Botero’s signature chubby people. He based these not off of the photographs that were released during the scandal but on written reports of it. They are not meant to depict exact events and methods of torture but to portray the physical, spiritual, and emotional sufferings of the prisoners. The bodies shown in these paintings are monstrous; they are much larger than were the actual bodies of the Abu Ghraib prisoners and guards. This art could be considered art because it depicts the polar opposite of perfection. It shows the dark side of the American efforts in Iraq. If the United States was a totalitarian nation, such images would be banned. Instead, they are showcased to prevent against other acts against human dignity by any American but especially the soldiers who are supposed to represent us. If this were applied to Nazi Germany, the equivalent would be someone painting graphic images that portray the pain of those in concentration camps. Obviously, if they were put on open display as these are, the paintings would be destroyed and the artist put in a concentration camp himself. This art has political ramifications because it is anti-war and encourages one to sympathize with the “enemy”. It makes Americans question whether what we are doing in Iraq is moral.

Ted Henderson Post 4

Part I:

In his inaugural speech originally published as ‘Der Fuhrer eroffnet die Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung 1937’, authoritarian leader Adolf Hitler made quite clear the fact that he found certain styles of art, most notably those of Germany’s avant-garde artists during his time as its dictator, threatening to his ideal image of the nation. This speech displays Hitler’s description of those German artists which utilized cutting edge techniques for their craft as “…men to whom God has denied the grace of a truly artistic talent, and in its place awarded them the gift of jabbering or deception…” (an infinitely ironic statement considering the unparalleled deception and round-about manner by which Hitler convinced the German public of countless untruths). In hurling such blatant slurs at the modern German artists of his time, and in his vehemently expressed indignant feelings for those up-and-coming styles of German art in the 1930’s, Hitler made it extremely obvious that he found such art to be a great threat to the state of being which he was attempting to facilitate in Germany as its dictator. Were he his wishes to have been fulfilled, all such art would have been completely erased from the public eye with the mere snap of his stiff little fingers.

At this point, the obvious question is, why did Hitler, and to speak more generally, why have totalitarian leaders throughout history displayed such feelings of personal threat and threat to what they see as an “ideal environment” in regards to specific art forms, in most cases that art which is not conservative or traditionalist by nature? This question can be at least somewhat answered by examining Book X of Plato’s Republic. In this writing, Plato expresses his basic belief that any art which is not uplifting of or progressive to a “well-ordered State” should, without exception, be judged swiftly, harshly, and sent away from such a “State”. Being an open believer in the efficiency of a government resembling a monarchy over the sort of aristocratic democracy which was utilized by Athens during his lifetime, Plato most likely thought

that an ideal nation’s art would depict only patriotic, conservative, and morally sound images which glorified the beliefs and practices of its sole leader. Images and art that didn’t conform to these standards, in the minds of those, for instance Plato (or Hitler), who promoted authoritarianism, were seen as directly disobeying, and perhaps even protesting the very foundation of their nation’s government. Hitler, as was made grotesquely clear in his many efforts to “purify” the country over which he held immense power, held a vision of a unified, uniform, and utterly obedient German civilian body. When artists such as those of the Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, and Impressionism movements created art that depicted images which did not meet this traditionalist standard, they were immediately looked upon by Hitler as a deviation from his image of Germany as a collective and submissive unit, as opposed to a group of free-spirited intellectuals (oh the humanity) with a propensity for individual expression and (dare I say it?) free will. Hitler’s vision of Germany was not creative in the sense that it consisted of an emphasis on the individual and his or her being able to carry themselves, or even genetically look unique and in some way out of the ordinary. In the same way, Adolf Hitler did not wish his public to be able to view, and in doing so possibly be influenced by paintings which, by nature, where not ordinary or of standard form, and thus the avant-garde paintings were inconsistent with his overall wishes for Germany, and had to be done away with.

Another reason, other than that outlined in Plato’s Republic, as for why a dictator such as Hitler might see modern art as such a threat to his rule is touched upon in the suggested reading by Ursula A. Ginder, most notably the “Cultural Policy: Goebbles’ Modernism vs. Rosenberg and Hitler’s Traditionalism” portion of her piece. In this section of Ginder’s essay, she states that, “Like the people he surrounded himself with, he (Hitler) lacked sophisticated knowledge of the many trends in modern art beginning with French Impressionism.” Ginder goes on to assert Hitler’s having been “A frustrated artist who was denied access to the Art Academy in Vienna twice,” and that, “he sublimated his festering insecurity by attacking all those artists who succeeded – the Dadaists, the Futurists, the Expressionists.” Thus, the new account as to why Hitler felt so threatened by this art and its creators which Ginder is presenting is, put quite frankly, the emotional tyrant’s own indignant jealousy. Hitler, after being rejected twice by a school which even held somewhat more traditionalist standards for art forms similar to his own, looked upon these edgy and out-of-the-box painters who had obtained the success which he so longed for and yet was unable to obtain with contempt and deep rooted malice which could only have stemmed from his own sense of inferiority. The coupling of this festering malice toward those artists who achieved the status and recognition which Hitler so coveted and his position of practically unlimited power was a recipe for his taking out his frustrations and anger on such modern-artists, deeming their work “degenerate art”. Hitler even went to such lengths as setting up two opposing exhibits, one being titled ‘True German Art’ and meant to display the dictators idea of such with its traditionalist pieces, and the other being deemed ‘Degenerate Art’, set up in attempts of “exposing” the fallacy in modernist art forms and movements. Unfortunately for Adolf, his plan to reform the German public back to an appreciation of a more formal style of artwork through these two exhibits backfired when ‘Degenerate Art’ received far more attention and commentary than the less intriguing ‘True German Art’. Woops!

Part II:

Adler Jankel was a prominent contributor to the Expressionist movement that took place in Germany during the nation’s time under Nazi Party rule. The Polish painter was one of the many whose works were removed from German museums by the Nazis in the 1930s and eventually placed into Hitler’s ‘Degenerate Art’ exhibit where they were mercilessly scorned and ridiculed. Before delving into why Jankel might have been chosen by Hitler, among others of the Expressionist movement, as an example of an unworthy and “degenerate” artist, one might wish to analyze the formalities of the man’s work and what specific elements it brought to the overall table of modernist art during the 1930s.

Adler Jankel’s paintings, most notably those depicting the human form, are certainly surrealist by nature. His work presents human-like shapes and figures that are significantly altered from the realistic idea of the human body. In many examples of Jankel’s art, these figures appear as disfigured, strangely colored, and overall exaggerated proportionally. In spite of the seeming odd and asymmetrical manner by which Jankel depicted the human form, his paintings are by no means lacking in beauty, movement, and character, and in fact, in my opinion, his work, unrealistic as it is, holds many more examples of these elements than any of the formal works which were shown in Hitler’s ‘True German Art’ exhibit. With its rather extreme aesthetic, Adler Jankel’s work is able to spark a considerable amount of excitement within the viewer through its implied sense of movement which can be greatly attributed to the unusual, choppy, and often times fuzzy manner by which Jankel portrays human bodies. Though these figures found in Jankel’s work are without a doubt void of any formal or traditional sense of human beauty (i.e. Michelangelo’s Statue of David), they are seldom lacking in beauty with their vibrant color schemes and in the very real emotion that is deeply embedded within their faces and forms. To me, because of the brilliant use of emotion, of motion, and of shear unrest within his work, Adler Jankel created something far more real than the lifeless, emotionless, but impeccably Arian faces which filled the halls of Hitler’s ‘True German Art’.

The concept of degeneracy or being a degenerate, according an online dictionary, is “to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorate.” Thus in describing the modernist art of his time as being “degenerate”, Hitler was making the claim that such work was the example of a fall below the acceptable and desired physical, mental, and moral qualities that should be displayed in artwork. The likelihood is that Hitler viewed the individually expressive nature of modern art during his time as its most degenerate component. One of his biggest policies as the leader of a people was to relieve the masses under his authority of any impurities so as to create a more perfect, Arian race of “flawless” beings. Any sort of diversion from the attempted organization and order of the group was viewed as an impurity, and thus, to be a distinct individual with distinct thoughts and feelings was to taint the otherwise sparkling face of the unity of the people. Thus, the uniqueness and disorganized nature of art such as that of Adler Jankel, to Hitler, represented a major threat to this policy of likeness, unity, and all for “the group”, nothing for “the individual”. The somewhat amorphous depictions of the human body in modernist artwork was most likely the biggest focus of Hitler’s ridicule of these cutting-edge aesthetics because of the fact that it directly related to his utter obsession with symmetry, similarity, and organization of human beings in reality. As is written in countless history books, Hitler had a very specific idea of the ideal human race, his “Arian Race”, as it is now referred to. For the human bodies painted by Expressionist artists and those of other modern art movements of the time to have been presented in such multicolored, multi-shaped, and emotionally excited/expressive a manner was, in Hitler’s own twisted mind, a direct regression from the efforts of his regime and political party to “purify” Germany as a nation, and in doing so, rid it of nearly all dissimilarity among its people. These bodies shown in modernist paintings were not of the same form which Hitler would have liked to seen filling his nations borders, and thus, in his opinion, were unfit for public viewing.

Though Hitler made the assertion that this modernist art was nothing short of degenerate and repulsive, an interesting thought can be noted when analyzing the type of work that was displayed in the ‘True German Art’ exhibit, which was highly acclaimed by the dictator. As is portrayed in George Mosse’s argument, sensuality ruins the very effects that beautiful art are meant to have on a society, and in fact, adding this element to art is to “reject social and sexual norms”. Mosse obviously felt that for art to reject such social norms was unacceptable and detrimental to a society’s well being, and, as has been painstakingly described in the above paragraphs, Hitler shared with Mosse this view of the amount of a threat that art can pose to civilized society. One may claim that much of the modernist German art of Hitler’s day was overly-sensual, often depicting lovers involved in close and intimate contact, and one who shared Hitler’s views on such styles of art may even say that this sensuality contributed greatly to the work’s degenerate nature, but a question to such a harsh critic of modern art must be raised: was not the work found in the ‘True German Art’ exhibit often extremely sensual by nature? In fact, most all of the female figures in the paintings which ‘True German Art’ displayed were either meant to be seen as maternal, and thus heavily clothed and utterly humble, or as objects of physical (and one might say perhaps sexual) beauty, and in these cases, completely nude. I’m sure very few people would try to defend the thought that a Greek mythological painting of Paris handing a golden apple to a robust and fully nude Aphrodite is not at all sensual. Nor would one take a glance at a sculpture of two extremely muscular, and extremely nude males, each holding the hand of the other, and not at least sense some level of homoeroticism in the piece’s aesthetic. Artwork such as this, the like of which filled each and every room of Hitler’s ‘True German Art’ exhibit, is, without a doubt, in some considerable way sensual by nature. Thus, some, such as Mosse, might comment that the very art which Hitler deemed uplifting of the German State was, in its own sense, detrimental to certain social norms, and subsequently detrimental to German society.

Part III: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Flagonfireimage2.jpg/300px-Flagonfireimage2.jpg

The above is a link to a webpage displaying an image of an American flag set on fire. Flag burning has been a very controversial issue within the borders of the United States for a number of years, and is a prime example of what some consider to be a form of artistic expression and that others consider to be unbelievably harmful to the U.S. as a nation and a society. The authoritarian worry about art that the above image exemplifies is civilian protest of government. One trait that seems consistent among all totalitarian leaders throughout history is there belief that, in order to maintain a completely unified image of strength within their nation, any and all protest of their rules, regulations, and behaviors as leaders must be completely wiped away from view by the public. This absolute contempt for any form of government protest on the part of an authoritarian leader (i.e. Adolf Hitler) most likely stems from the thought that, if a protest group were to gain any sort of steam and size with their views of a dictator’s incompetence or tyrannical brutality (views that very well might be accurate), this group, in time, might gain and utilize the ability to overthrow their governing leader. Certainly, in the case of a dictator such as Hitler, this fear of being overtaken by any sort of protesting group can grow into such a paranoia that, in the leader’s eyes, even the most seemingly insignificant bit of government protest, such as a piece of art displaying a burning national flag, poses some sort of threat to the unity of the society’s future submission to this leader, and thus must be removed from the public eye immediately.

Citation:

1.) Stern Gallery: Adler Jankel, 9/19/07

http://www.sternart.com/artist.asp?ID=14

2.) Nehama Guralnik: Adler Jankel, Grove Art Online, 9/19/07

© Oxford University Press 2007

http://www.groveart.com/shared/views/article.html?from=search&session_search_id=288550293&hitnum=3&section=art.000520

3.) The New York Times, EDWARD ROTHSTEIN, Published: January 8, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/arts/design/08expe.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=bf76aba3035069ba&ex=1190088000&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190251726-ReqhQQqCsNp+dJ9vmdh5SQ

Ashley C. Post 4

Ashley Cannaday

1) Authoritarian regimes try to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives, so that the government has all of the power. These rulers are threatened by art because all art has an underlying message that it is trying to convey to the viewer. As Hitler stated in his speech inaugurating the Great Exhibition of German Art, “The artist does not create for the artist, but… creates for the people.” This message can be very powerful and persuasive. Plato very much believed that art had the power to both destroy the state and promote the state (Republic Book X), and most authoritative thinkers would agree. Different forms of art present the viewer with different points of view, and different opinions. This is the last thing that leaders like Hitler want. Authoritarian regimes don’t want artists to fill the heads of the people with ideas that go against the regime, and possibly lead to rebellion.

2) The artistic movement I chose to explore was Expressionism, which spread across Europe around 1905. This movement was characterized by bright symbolic colors and art that aroused some kind of emotion and feelings. The aim of expressionist art was not to depict reality, but the artist’s thoughts and emotions. One of the major branches of the Expressionist movement, The Bridge, saw expressionist art as “a bridge to the future.” The Expressionist artist I chose to explore was Gustav Klimt. Most of Klimt’s paintings depict scenes that evoke love and passion. In many of his paintings, the human body tends to blend into the background, as is the case with one of his most famous paintings, The Kiss. The clothing of the person is usually the same shade or pattern of the surroundings. What is most noticeable usually are the faces of the people. Even in the few paintings where the whole human body is prominent, the faces are still given much more detail, and much more perfection. Klimt’s portrayal of the body is imperfect, showing no muscle definition, large back-sides, and flabby stomachs. By showing the body as imperfect, or by hiding it altogether, and emphasizing the human face, Klimt may be saying that beauty does not come from a god-like figure, but from an attractive and radiant face.

The Kiss by Gustav Klimt (Left) Mada Primavesi by Gustav Klimt (Right)

The Beethoven Frieze by Klimt

Mosse describes degeneracy as “the condition of those who had departed from the ‘normal’.” He further explains that it was used to describe “those who refused to conform to the moral dictates of society.” (Beauty without Sensuality Pg. 26) Degeneracy was used by Hitler to describe anything that went against what he considered normal, or any form of art that was different from the classical style of German art. Modern artists in Germany were seen as degenerate, showing lies that distorted reality and deceived the viewer ( Hitler Speech). To degenerate literally means to decay and become worse. In Nazi Germany, degenerates were seen as rotting the minds of the citizens with images and ideas that went against the Regime. The term degenerate was used to describe anyone or thing that went against National Socialism, or that simply didn’t match their definition of acceptable and normal to the last detail.

Hitler saw degeneracy in Gustav Klimt’s art because it didn’t depict the way the real world looks. He saw art like Klimt’s as lies and deceit, going so far as to say that “God denied the grace of truly artistic talent, and in its place has awarded them the gift of jabbering or deception.” ( Hitler Speech) Hitler thought that ideal “German Art” depicted reality as it truly was, as it was seen by the human eye. He did not approve of “meadows blue, skies green, clouds sulphur yellow,” as he states in his speech. He thought that possibly these artists saw things differently, and suffered from an eye disease. Also, the human bodies in Klimt’s paintings are not perfect and god-like, which deviates from Hitler’s ideal Aryan society. The main theme of Klimt’s paintings was often love, passion, and sensuality. Hitler disproved of this message in art because “of what it symbolized, namely, a revolt against respectability as a principle of unity and order- thus, the destruction of the immutable values upon which society supposedly rested.” (Beauty Pg. 25) He found these images threatening because the artists “try vehemently to foist these products of their misinterpretation upon the age we live in,” corrupting the German people, and causing them to stray from the Nazi, and therefore “German” way of life.

The body in art was the main source of degeneracy because Hitler was obsessed with creating the perfect Aryan race. Blemishes of any kind were simply not tolerated. Humans in art had to have the body of a Greek god. Hitler saw this degenerate are as “misrepresentations” of the body, and he didn’t want his perfect race to be depicted that way. He wanted the world to see Germans as superior in every way. In Hitler’s view, these Modern Artists showed “the present population of our nation only as rotten cretins,” devaluing the German race. To enforce his Nazi ideals to the public, he had to convince them that Germans must be flawless, and Modernist representation of the body threatened this.

George Mosse argued that beauty with sensuality is a threat to the social order and represents deviation from accepted norms. He states that it symbolizes “a revolt against respectability as a principle of unity and order.” (Beauty Pg. 25) Beauty with sensuality invokes passion and lust. It was thought that these feelings brought out the primitive animal instinct in the people, causing them to act uncontrollably (Beauty Pg. 25). Beauty without sensuality controlled passion, and allowed the German people to be viewed as civilized and superior.

3)

The image above depicts an Iraqi child who was mutilated as a result of a bombing during the ongoing war in Iraq. Many photos just like this can be seen on the websites of war protesters, alongside the latest Iraq body count statistics. There are so many emotions that this image arouses: disgust, sadness, anger, sympathy. This image can lead the viewer into believing that the war in Iraq should end, and that the ends do not, in this case, justify the means. There have been continuous debates in Washington regarding the war, and it is probably true that George W. Bush’s presidency has been viewed so negatively because of the destruction that his war has lead to.

Christopher Post 4

Christopher McCauley

1. Art allows people to think freely. Art is an outlet for people’s thoughts and ideas to wander, and for them to express those thoughts and ideas in a creative way. All types of art do this: paintings, drawings, sculptures, poems, novels, music, dance, plays, everything. The spread of ideas through art has existed for centuries. In a way, most art is propaganda, because an artist is trying to throw his beliefs at you, whether or not it has political motives. As wonderful as art may be for this purpose, authoritarian regimes do not like this very much.

It is unlikely that an authoritarian regime would want its people to disagree with the beliefs and principles of that regime. Art is an easy way to show disagreement with said regimes; therefore, such art is threatening to these regimes. Looking back at Book X, of The Republic, Plato’s whole argument is that art should be created for the state, and that any art that harms the progression of the state, regime, or nation, is bad, and should be condemned. Coherence, or unity with the large portion, namely the governing body, is what art should represent (although Book X seems to describe mostly poets and their writings, we can view this as all art). Plato says, “Speaking in confidence, for I should not like to have my words repeated to the tragedians and the rest of the imitative tribe—but I do not mind saying to you, that all poetical imitations are ruinous to the understanding of the hearers, and that the knowledge of their true nature is the only antidote to them.” In other words, Plato is saying that if you disagree, or have different opinions than the powers-that-be, this is bad, and that be getting rid of, or destroying this type of art and thinking, all will be fixed, and order will be restored.

Another example, much more recent than Plato, is the Nazi regime. As we all know, Hitler and the Nazi’s were very bigoted against Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Africans, and basically everyone who was not them, or of the Arian race. One of the large components of Hitler’s campaign was censorship of art. In his 1937 speech inaugurating the “Great Exhibition of German Art,” Hitler says, “Until the moment when National-Socialism took power, there existed in Germany a so-called ‘modern art,’ that is, to be sure, almost every year another one, as the very meaning of this word indicates. National-Socialist Germany, however, wants again a ‘German Art,’ and this art shall and will be of eternal value, as are all truly creative values of a people. Should this art, however, again lack this value for our people, then indeed it will mean that it also has no higher value today.” (440). This excerpt from Hitler’s speech quite obviously shows the aforementioned idea about different, or in Hitler’s terms, “modern” art, and how it has no positive value for the state. Instead, Hitler speaks of a “German Art,” that will be positive for the advancement of Nazi Germany society.

2. Otto Dix was a German expressionist during the time of the Nazi regime. He painted gruesome war scenes (he was himself a WW1 veteran of the German army), nudes, and portraits, despite his training as a wall decorator. Dix’s work showed the human body in incredibly distorted ways, with outrageous colors, and positions. His 1922 watercolor painting, Lady, shows a nude woman, who looks absolutely vulgar. She looks very messy, with make-up smeared all over her face, and dirt caked onto her skin. Dix’s color choices are also very odd—she does have brown her, like a real person might, however her eyebrows are an ashy blue, and her skin has the gray tint that a corpse might have.

Christ and Veronica, which he painted in 1943, seems also to be slightly outlandish. It depicts the famous scene from the bible, in which Christ is pinned to the cross, and pleads to a woman (Veronica) for help. Once again, the bodies in this painting are slightly distorted. Some figures have undersized heads, enlarged shoulders, squished faces, and colors running down their bodies. A few of the subjects are also wearing clothes from modern times, which seems to contrast the clothing of first century Israel on the others. By no means, do the people in the painting look beautiful.

1. According to the Mosse article, Beauty Without Sensuality, degeneration is a “medical term used during the second half of the nineteenth century to identify the condition of those who had departed from the ‘normal’ because of shattered nerves, inherited abnormalities, or behavioral or sexual excess.” (Mosse, 26) When applied to art, degeneracy in this sense is an accurate term. Looking at Dix’s work again, we see distorted bodies, abnormal facial expressions and strange body characteristics, such as atypical skin color.
2. Hitler certainly saw degeneracy in Dix’s work, since he was featured in the Entarte Künst exhibit. Hitler saw threat in the art because of its nonconforming characteristics. Hitler was quoted as saying degenerate art shows “women who can only arouse revulsion.” Dix’s Lady, is a prime example of that because of its outrageous appearance. Dix’s depiction of the human body makes it seem ugly. The Nazi regime preferred art which depicted the body as strong, and beautiful, like the statues and sculptures of the ancient Greeks and Romans.
3. The body is the main source of accusation for degeneracy because the body represents strength and stature. The Nazi regime was all about vigor—never weakness. To them, the art was weak, and weak meant Jew-like, gypsy-like, or gay-like. In his speech, Hitler stated, “As little as the character and the blood of our people will change, so much will art have to lose its moral character and replace it with worthy images expressing the life-course of our people in the steadily unfolding growth of our creations.” Much of the Nazi idea was about appearance, and about purity. A body that was not pure represented what the Arian race of people should not become. They did not want their blood to be unclean like they believed the Jews’ was.
4. Beauty with sensuality is a threat to social order because there is sex in it. “Beauty was perceived as somehow sexless…” (Mosse, 27). The Nazi’s rejected all forms of art that showed any sort of sexuality. They did not want there to be lust in their art; it was to show only beauty, strength, and stature. Ironically, there was nudity in “good” German art, however it was like the nudity in ancient Greek and Roman art. Depictions of strong, muscular male bodies which show stamina and presence—there is nothing sexual about that type of art.

3. (b) This image, by an unknown artist depicts a body as monstrously ugly and decaying. It almost looks evil in a way, or that it may be possessed by some sort of demon. It appears to me, that it depicts what happens to a person’s body from smoking. The lungs are charred black and look dry, cracked and broken. This could not possibly be good for the advancement of society, and using Mosse’s definition, is certainly degenerate. I think that this image shows the ethical question of whether or not it is okay to smoke. Smoking, is obviously harmful to one’s body. This image directly depicts that harm, but in such a way that it makes it seem wicked and immoral. Does it necessarily mean that smoking is immoral, or that those who do smoke are immoral? I do not think so, but I do think that this image is a good way to scare people away from smoking.